Dale M. Wheeler (
Fri, 20 Sep 1996 14:42:49 -0700

D. Lembo wrote:

>No.What hEWS hOU compresses is not hEWS TOU XRONOU (KAIROU) hWi but hEWS
>TOUTOU (EKEINOU) hWi, where the neuter pronoun TOUTO (EKEINO) replaces the
>masc. noun, i.e. we have not ellipsis but (stronger and simpler) deixis.
>The mere neuter (= "point") for a masc./fem./neuter noun like XRONOS,
>KAIROS, hEMERA etc. is common in Greek. For instance, in hEWS TOU NUN (Mt
>24.21) TOU NUN is the gen. of TO NUN (neuter), not of TOU NUN XRONOU/KAIROU
>(masculine) minus XRONOU/KAIROU.

I agree that TOUTO/EKEINO is the other option, but what I'm wondering,
as Carl Conrad mentioned in his post, is whether there are any example
of the entire phrase anywhere, before it became a compressed idiomatic
usage; I don't seem to be able to find any in any tools or texts I've
checked so far. I also agree with what Don Wilkins said and have the
"gut level" feeling (now there's a receipe for disaster :-) ) that the
hOU is acting like TOUTO in this case and is a neuter substitute referring
back to a "whatever" case noun phrase, a not uncommon situation--since
BAGD doesn't give any specific passages to demonstrate their choice of
neuter for hOU, I'd guess that they are operating under the same

I also considered the hEWS TOU NUN uses, but decided that they weren't
clear enough evidence, since one could argue that the neuter article is
simply being used to substantize the adverb (a common phenomenon).